update_repository

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Update an existing repository' and returns updated details, but lacks disclosure on atomicity, validation, side effects, or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and structured as an Args/Returns docstring. It lists parameters efficiently without unnecessary text, though the Returns section is minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and is a mutation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify error conditions, idempotency, partial update behavior, or permissions. Output schema exists but description still lacks context for key aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal meaning. It lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'ID of the project'), clarifying optionality. However, it doesn't add format constraints or further context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Update an existing repository' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_repository, get_repository, and delete_repository.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. Siblings like update_project exist but no differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.